Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests/Archives/7

220.255.1.0/26


Reason: Requested unblock. Multiple requests to the unblock-en mailing list from the IP range. Seems that Singaporean ISP maybe putting customers through a local proxy, rather than open proxies. Spoke with admin placing block and their memory of the specifics of the incident are now vague beyond a check was run. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on my way out of town, but I looked into this briefly. It looks like a closed proxy or web-accelerator type service for the customers of that ISP.  It was also a ridiculously active range for a /26 (actually, this apparently came up before and the entire /22 is ridiculously active....).  I vaguely remember seeing this exact range before myself, but can't find where I intersected with it..... I recommend unblocking, but someone else should look at this who can do a more thorough check.  Sailsbystars (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will unblock it, and we can continue testing, if it is problematic we can just reapply, that is nothing new. Yet more mail from the IP range. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing is indicating anything further on my end...so i'm going to close this. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

69.22.170.0/24


This has been blocked for a year, have a request to unblock-en, can we please check the range to determine whether it still is problematic. Thanks — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Requested unblock.
 * Errr... this looks like an anonymising program to me. And is coming from a colocation provider which no one has to edit from.  The unblock request had better be more specific than "unblock please."  The program is free to download and specifically hides IPs, and jumps around a lot in the range.  I don't see why the block shouldn't be extended, recent proxy like actions as of Dec. 6 2011.  Any unblock request should contain specific reference to why they have to edit from that IP range..... A second opinion is welcome of course.... Sailsbystars (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, I know this companies proxy pretty well, and they stick around for a long time, but in interest of compromise, 2 years sounds fine. Also Spellcast knows what he's doing and catches all those IPs. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

195.189.142.176


Blocked 4+ years ago, time to review following email to unblock-en 1 October 2007 Ryulong (talk | contribs | block) blocked 195.189.142.176 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ( : Opera Mini Demo interface) (unblock | change block)

Reason: Check for ongoing validity. Thx — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This one is complicated. I tried the opera mini demo interface and sure enough it works nice and open proxy like.  However, I came out as .  It's possible that opera has shifted around their IPs such that the demo interface uses. Or alternately, the demo interface dynamically choose random opera IPs, just like the real browser.  On the one hand, opera mini IPs are pretty similar to any cell provider, which we generally don't long term block.  On the other hand, the demo interface allows people to access it from their full computers.  I lean towards unblocking.  Sailsbystars (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * also, and agree with the above assessment, therefore unblocked. Though I did that it generates random IPs, so i've blocked the /20 and we'll try later to see if this one comes back. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  10:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

216.17.107.51


There is an unblock request at User talk:216.17.107.51. There are, in fact, two range blocks affecting that IP address, one is a checkuser block, which I have referred to the blocking checkuser/admin. The other is a proxy block, and I would be grateful if someone could check it. The user says "this ip is not an open proxy and is only used by me." The block log entry is 07:07, 15 June 2007 Ryulong blocked 216.17.104.0/21 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Requested unblock.


 * I've lifted the one, this is probably a different person than the one who caused the block. Range was exclusively used by one persistent troublemaker in the past three months, but it's not important enough ATM if it causes collateral damage. I have also lifted the proxy block: I'd be surprised if the whole /21 was ever used exclusively by open proxies, and it's been 4.5 years since it's been set anyway. Amalthea  18:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Note this was copied from a TP after the below cmt. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)  — Sorry, I thought it would help to give your reply context. ;)  Amalthea  15:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with Amalthea's assesment, because it looks like we have a webhost here on the /21. Not that this IP contains proxies, but it does contain sites like [searchengineadult.com this one]. Can I have someone double check me just to make sure i'm not just being tired? -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that 216.17.96.0/20 is registered by a hosting company, but it's not that the whole range is populated by open proxies. Are we routinely blocking webhosts? Amalthea  11:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, webhosts are blocked these days. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well then, feel free to re-block the /20 for whichever duration is appropriate. Do we have a guideline page on that? I can't quite get that aligned with my understanding of WP:BLOCK … Amalthea  15:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know where your getting the /20 from, but that would cause some collateral damage when we can hit some smaller ranges including to a group of sprint customers (it's just the first name I recognized off the list. 216.17.100.0/22 and 216.17.104.0/21 blocked for a year. As for a guideline, WP:PROXY covers this as an anonymous proxy, and so does the blocking policy, but they should get an update with some more detailed info on why we block them. It's primarily because there is no reason for webhosts to be editing. They aren't individuals, and usually are trying to evade a block when doing so. (I've seen too many examples of this) So we always hardblock the ranges. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting 216.17.96.0/20 from the whois record . The whole range is assigned to a1colo.com aka amerinoc.com. Where are you getting the 216.17.104.0/21 from? And it's in my opinion quite a leap to call any closed webserver an Anonymizer. I can get on board saying that end-users are very unlikely to use it for normal editing, but like I said, I wouldn't call it "imminent or continuing damage and disruption". If there is disruption from one, we can handle them like any other static IP. Amalthea  18:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in response, the /21 is from the Robtex link above, which I personally tend to find the most accurate, but that's me. As far as Webhosts being blocked, i'll take that to the talkpage. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

202.156.10.9


A number of requests via unblock-en, and there seems a hint of IP proxy, especially I rDNS I find it is Singapore Serangoon Starhub Cable Vision Ltd Resolve Host: 	202.156.10.9.cache.maxonline.com.sg IP Address: 	202.156.10.9 If we could at least check and rule out open proxy (as history previously as open proxy, though not currently labelled that way, just problematic), then we can modify how we handle requests from this IP.

Reason: Check only at this stage. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with hash.es on this one and say it's been down for a good while, but maybe it should go without the account creation flag? To allow legit users? -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  07:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like mentioned above it's an ISP proxy (http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/202.156.10.9), but not an open proxy. We supposedly are trusting the XFF headers of MaxOnline/StarHub Cable Vision, but this particular proxy seems to be missing. I've notified folks at XFF project and it hopefully will be whitelisted in the near future. Amalthea  10:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of XFF is not that strong, but we actually don't put our trust in the cite you list above as it's been known to have incorrect information. Does MaxOnline/Starhub do XFF for us? -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to put trust in any site, I'm using it since it is convenient summary of the situation as I see it. I'll be more verbose: Reverse-lookup of 202.156.10.9 produces 202.156.10.9.cache.maxonline.com.sg. This IP gives every indication to be an ISP proxy; among other signs, requests through it are sending XFF headers. I know that [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=XFF_project&diff=590902&oldid=587920 VoA added MaxOnline/StarHub Cable Vision] to the list of XFF-trusted ISPs at XFF project, and that a proxy of that ISP (IP 218.186.9.1, reverse-lookup 218-186-9-1.cache.maxonline.com.sg) is listed on http://www.wikimedia.org/trusted-xff.html; I don't know the process for selecting those trusted proxies, but I assume that 202.156.10.9 can be added there as well, so I wrote a mail to the address noted on XFF project suggesting to add it. Amalthea  18:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to indicate that you were asking me to put my trust in that site. And thanks for the clarification on that, I now have some new bookmarks :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I was thinking you were trying to indicate that I was asking you to trust in that site. ;) And you are right of course that whatismyipaddress.com is not always correct or up to date; for me it has always been a good starting point -- no more, no less. You should update that one new bookmark by the way, the site I linked to isn't actually kept in synch with the repository; current list in MediaWiki trunk is here, current wmf branch is probably this one. Tim Starling added this IP yesterday, so I guess this block can be lifted, but should never see edits. Amalthea  15:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unblocked per above as trusted XFF host. &mdash; madman 04:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

216.52.185.72


Reason: Repeated abuse from IP, currently reported on WP:AIV. Geolocate lists the IP as a "confirmed proxy server" RA  talkcontribs 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We actually don't put our faith in the site you source, it's frequently unreliable. I'm not seeing anything from my end right now to indicate a proxy, but I don't fully trust all the checks i'm running right now because of the location i'm in. I'll give it another check later. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'm now getting stuff since changing locations. Though with this requested login, I think were dealing with a closed proxy unless a default password is in place, but would like someone to triple for me to be sure. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a corporate firewall/filtering service. Treat it the same way you would a schoolip vandalism (generally, an increasing duration of mostly soft-blocks).  Sailsbystars (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

178.63.97.34


Reason: Suspicious edits. I used the tor check tool which seemed to indicate that it was a tor node that exited to wikipedia, but figured it was worth reporting. Currently is blocked for 3 months, email and talkpage blocked since it was being abusively abusive, abusively. Syrthiss (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * it's Tor. Upgraded to hardblock. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

64.76.75.58


From User_talk:64.76.75.58: "This is not really an open proxy. It's a transparent proxy for the customers of IFotoncorp (ifotoncorp.com), a small (as in <200 customers) ISP in the Galapagos islands."

Reason: Requested unblock.

Admin comment - I found this through Unblock Requests, although the IP block is not active. I can't figure out what is going on, but I'm sure a tech wizard here might sort it out. Apologies if this is time-wasting. Manning (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Mbethke posted that unblock request, and he currently has an unblock request on his talkpage. Took the liberty of looking, and I have to say because I was getting some kind of response on the HTTP side of things, to the point where I had a supposed certificate for (something).example.com but it timed out on the connection, so I'm not sure. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm... the block log looks empty to me? Not sure what's going on here.... Sailsbystars (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I dealt with this via private email, all proxies that exist are blocked. He's IPBE'd right now. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

74.236.56.26


Reason: Appeal at unblock-en-l. I am unable to confirm that this IP address is still running an open proxy. --Chris (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Proxy looks gone to me, unblocked. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with DQ, looks like it was only briefly a proxy. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

213.239.192.110


Reason: Suspicious edits IP previously blocked as proxy. The only recent contribution is an attack on another user (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparthorse&diff=prev&oldid=474051216), previous contribution suggests it is probably a web proxy. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Webhost that I just nuked. Robtex tells all. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

74.207.231.113


Reason: Requested unblock.
 * Note added this so i'm adding him as a likely suspect. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Webhost block is valid, second one not a proxy by WP:DUCK signs. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

110.34.4.242


See User talk:Sudip Regmi. User claims it isn't a open proxy, would appreciate some advice. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hash.es gives some interesting info. The proxy is likely around, just not right now... so asking for a hold/2nd opinion here. Also note something funny when I try to web address it on 8080. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely an ISP proxy, though it would appear to require authentication... user seems to have a non-disruptive history, maybe IP block exemption? I definitely would not recommend unblocking this one. &mdash; madman 19:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am able to use 116.66.194.33:8080 as an open proxy, which terminates at 110.34.4.242:


 *  $ http_proxy=http://116.66.194.33:8080 wget -q -O - http://automation.whatismyip.com/n09230945.asp 110.34.4.242


 * This is absolutely still an open proxy, and it should remain blocked. --Chris (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Crazycomputers. I wasn't able to connect through the 116 address the other day, but since it appears to be back, I have declined the unblock request. I'm willing to grant an IPBE if the user agrees not to misuse it and it'll be removed later, etc. Watching user talk page. &mdash; madman 14:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it's perhaps an infected computer? Maybe when they shut down their box at night that's why we can't reach the proxy. :) --Chris (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, that's almost certainly the case and explains why the connection terminates at the ISP proxy's address. &mdash; madman 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

96.44.163.76


I am a User:Ramaksoud2000 and I'm reporting this proxy myself from this proxy because it is a tor exit relay. I'll be signing here as Ramaksoud2000 shortly to confirm but this is a tor exit relay and should be blocked.


 * Confirmation: Ramaksoud2000 (Did I make a mistake?) 01:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmation: 96.44.163.76 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have confirmed that this is a tor exit node opening to Wikipedia. I have blocked the IP address for 6 months, and am marking this report as checked. Please let me know if anyone more experienced in these matters think this was not the right way to handle this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks JamesBWatson. I've confirmed and am closing. &mdash; madman 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

129.11.76.229


Reason: Requested unblock at User talk:Sceptre - this is a university proxy server so the block is likely affecting a number of users. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and unblocked. There definitely was a proxy port there in early January 2012, but I can't connect through it. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * &mdash; madman 03:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

94.23.158.24


This is a dedicated server that I administer. It is not acting as a proxy. draeath (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * – Have granted IP block exemption to . &mdash; madman 19:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

94.23.251.210


This is a dedicated server that I administer. It is not acting as a proxy. Reason: Requested unblock. draeath (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * – Have granted IP block exemption to . &mdash; madman 19:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

108.59.252.58


Reason: Escapeeyes again.
 * Verified this IP and blocked 108.59.240.0/20. Materialscientist (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

129.11.76.229


Reason: Requested unblock.
 * Unblock-en-l request. Forwarding here so someone can do this if I forget. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . Unblocked by above. &mdash; madman 03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For my notes: Reply sent on Unblock-en-l. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

98.143.144.0/20


Reason: Requested unblock.
 * Haven't even looked into, from unblock-en-l, inviting blocking admin in to discuss. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't remember anything behind the circumstances of this block. Anyone is free to overturn it if they don't think that this is an open proxy. NW ( Talk ) 18:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the talk page, it looks like this may have been americanproxy.org at one point, but that site appears to be defunct. I'm going to take a while to search this range just to make sure. &mdash; madman 03:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am independently running a scan of this range and will report back with my findings. --Chris (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * After an nmap of this range and a run of my proxy checking script over the open ports, nothing turned up. There was one host that accepted proxy requests, but replied to every request with 302 Found and changed the scheme to https.  Not sure what that's about, but it didn't actually do any proxying.  --Chris (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unblocked. --Chris (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally understand what i'm looking at either, but agree with the unblock at this point. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

196.46.241.122


Reason: Requested unblock.
 * Unblock-en-l request. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

204.69.190.254


User seems a little irritated about the block and insists that it's not a proxy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . The blocking administrator may have mistaken a shared IP address (which may be the case) with an open proxy. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 04:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is St. John's College. "Open proxy" is just one line below "schoolblock" in the block popup list. This may also be a reason for IPs blocked indef instead of 3 hr :-D. Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the block to an anonblock then, as was probably intended. Account creation is still blocked, but the user may create an account and edit by following the instructions in the block message. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 04:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

201.9.177.212


Reason: Requested unblock.
 * I don't see any block on this IP. Do you mean autoblock? Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As Materialscientist indicates, there is no outstanding block on this IP. Therefore no check is necessary.  --Chris (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

184.22.125.132


Escapeeyes. --GenericBob (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . (Browser-based proxy.)  --Chris (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

178.63.32.109


Escapeeyes. --GenericBob (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . The IP appears to belong to a VPS.  Port 8081 is open but does not appear to proxy anything.  --Chris (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Webhost blocked. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

220.255.2.121


Block message:

I am unable to verify that this proxy is still open. has requested that this address be unblocked. --Chris (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there was a transient proxy there in January but not anymore. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked again today and I can't find anything, so.

88.208.234.187


On behalf of. --Chris (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems like a CU block to me rather than a proxyblock, thus asked Tnxman307 (blocking admin/checkuser). Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unblocked by Tnxman307. Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

96.8.113.52


Escapeeyes. --GenericBob (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmed web proxy on 96.8.113.52, blocked 96.8.112.0/23 (hosting range, low activity) - feel free to amend block parameters. Materialscientist (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

173.192.118.68


173.192.0.0/16 blocked by Zzuuzz,.

Reason: Requested unblock at User talk:Speeddymon. The user says "The IP in question is the external endpoint IP for SoftLayer's corporate office network. No idea why they use a proxy, but I am reasonably sure that the single IP could be whitelisted without causing any further spamming since it is separate from the rest of the hosted customers.

Side note, I had to post this from my phone on 4G because I can no longer even edit my talk page on the company network. ". JamesBWatson (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If we forgo the proxy check for now and assume that the range is clear, the existing 173.192.0.0/16 block will have to expand into these blocks to exclude the 173.192.118.0/24 range:
 * 173.192.0.0/18
 * 173.192.64.0/19
 * 173.192.96.0/20
 * 173.192.112.0/22
 * 173.192.116.0/23
 * 173.192.119.0/24
 * 173.192.120.0/21
 * 173.192.128.0/17
 * So... should we consider doing that (more block maintenance, less collateral damage) or just go the IPBE route (easy fix, but may have to grant IPBE to more accounts later)? --Chris (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . I was unable to find any open proxies in the 173.192.118.0/24 range. The remaining question now is how do we deal with the wider rangeblock.  --Chris (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've Googled the /16 range and here is what I've got: there are tons of web and http proxies in the range and some web proxies are below (verified). The 173.192.118.0/24 range seems clean, but there are some ghosts like freewebproxy.co, which was (is?) sitting in the 173.192.64.0/18 range. To sum up, the /16 range is rotten, but I have no direct evidence there is an active proxy in the particular 173.192.118.0/24 subrange. A possible compromise is "anonblock" on /16, i.e. release users who are already registered. Materialscientist (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * proxyactive.com 173.192.30.234 173.192.0.0/18
 * proxiesunlimited.com 173.192.130.216 173.192.128.0/18
 * unblockwebsitenow.com 173.192.208.79 173.192.192.0/19
 * passonme.info 173.192.216.119 173.192.192.0/19


 * I'm not sure I like the idea of a softblock. :/ --Chris (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've applied IPBE to . --Chris (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

222.166.181.231


Though their specific statements about 222.166.181.43 to 22.166.181.159, 222.166.181.43 to 22.166.181.231

Requests through unblock-en for clearance or to grant IP-exemption for account. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Requested unblock.
 * I saw the statement on the list and according to the block logs I think those all should be 222 for the first octet. But looking into. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now i'm not seeing it for all 222s. There was one minor piece of evidence that was odd, but nothing to indicate anything I can go on. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can this be closed? should be IP-block exempt as an admin, so I don't know that any administration is needed. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 04:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This IP was blocked globally by Shizao on 22 March 2012. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

68.190.12.40


Beetstra and XLinkBot are having a little battle with a morphing set of domains, and a few IP addresses. Needing to determine whether it is corrupted, open, owned. Have a series that belong to same case. There are more. however, this should give a good indication of whether it is open proxy abuse. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Requested block.
 * Here is some info on your hosts:
 * - - Charter Communications, normal ISP - I can`t activate a proxy, but there is definitely something suspicious here that`s not normal for an ISP. Possible that a login is required, but I can`t even find that.
 * - - Cox Communications, normal ISP
 * - This is not an open proxy, but it sure looks like a closed proxy. Possible peer to peer service active - Frontier Communications, normal ISP
 * - - CSC Holdings
 * - - Verizon Online, normal ISP
 * This looks like you've got someone who has access to multiple computers across the United States or a peer-to-peer network, but no open proxies to report as far as I see. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

106.187.43.220


Reason: Requested an unblock. Claims the open proxy was a misconfiguration and has since closed the open squid on port 3128.--v/r - TP 13:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He's cleared up the proxy on 3128, but it doesn't explain why he's editing from a webhost. I'm going to unblock because it's not being used abusively as far as I can tell, but please do watch the source that this came from carefully. If it's from unblock-en-l, offer to create him an account. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

50.22.226.81


Suspected proxy once more of Escapeeyes, who now is insulting Purrum as some of her other favourite targets have been recently protected.

Reason: Suspicious edits
 * Confirmed this IP and blocked for 6 months. Materialscientist (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

76.118.180.210


Reason: Suspicious edits The IP is clearly a sock of someone - see unblock request decline.

I looked up the ip on http://whatismyipaddress.com/blacklist-check: both The Spamhaus Project and Spam and Open Relay Blocking System came back red for that IP. The IP was already blocked for other disruption at that point. Several adjustments to the block were made, but I ultimately restored the original disruption block, questioning the results from the blacklist check. This seems like a better route to verify the existance of an open relay/proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * , or at least this is not the entry point. --Chris (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it here either. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Webhost vandal


Reason: Suspicious edits. Vandalising Canadian websites from an IP that seems to resolve to Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Possible proxy. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . Most ports were filtered by a firewall, but port 8080 was closed.  This may indicate that a proxy was previously running, but I cannot verify that one is any longer.  --Chris (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)



Reason: Suspicious edits

Moscow IP has just made identical edit as suspected Rotterdam proxy (immediately above). Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)



Reason: Suspicious edits. Same edit as Rotterdam and Moscow but now it's from Lithuania. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merged. For the record, all there all are rangeblocked because they are webhosts. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

81.98.21.251


User claims that the tool used delivers a lot of false poses that would lead us to block his entire range (However, there may be a subtext to this. See this recent AN/I thread. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

68.71.39.10


Reason: Geolocate indicates name of registered organization is Peacefire, typing IP directly into the address bar leads to a Peacfire Circumventor Site. RA talkcontribs 05:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple proxies


"Hide My Ass!" web proxies. Rangeblock? <b style="font-variant:smallcaps;"> HF 25 </b> 18:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All these IP addresses are already rangeblocked since 2008/2010. Use "current blocks" link at the bottom of IP contribs page. — AlexSm 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * – Indeed, they're all indefinitely blocked (and all but the last two are blocked globally). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

85.194.127.10


Unblock request from the mailinglist. The block is a five year block from 2009, it might be time for a re-check. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Requested unblock.
 * – Well, it is a proxy, but its policy does not permit access to enwiki (at least from my IP...). Therefore, I've unblocked, but the IP should be reblocked if there are indications it does permit open access to enwiki from elsewhere (I'm assuming it does provide some access to the requester; otherwise, unblocking is not going to particularly help him/her. If not, he/she may have to discuss getting access to enwiki with his/her network administrator.) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

217.64.30.8


Edit warrior from Azerbaijan who feels like spamming all kinds of comment sections and email spamming or an open proxy. You decide! Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Suspicious edits


 * Looks like an open proxy, but I was only able to fetch Google's homepage before the proxy started lagging too much, so I cannot verify the exit point. I will keep trying.  (This IP has been blocked as an open proxy before.)  --Chris (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . --Chris (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

217.13.197.5


Reason: Abusive edits

OverlordQ's Tor Checker, Geolocate, and Robtex all indicate that this is a TOR exit node. RA talkcontribs 18:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * as a Tor node. --Chris (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

210.55.215.173


Reason: The account is currently blocked, but we have received no less than 9 clearly distinct unblock requests from the unblock mailinglist. This indicates there might be some proxy editing going on. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . The block message is quite clear already; this is an ISP proxy that is used by many subscribers. --Chris (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And you placed the block anyway... I'm confused what you're looking for here. :) --Chris (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's indeed a closed proxy: hence my change of the block message. Note that the only change I made to to block is the messsage, not that I blocked the IP. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

61.18.170.84


Says it's merely a dynamic IP, not a proxy. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was blocked as 61.10.75.133:8909, i.e. a tunnel proxy, which was surely working in October 2011. I can not connect through it now and think this was just an infected residential PC, but would leave it for some time (that PC might be switched off right now). The unblock request came from IP, which also shows up as "proxy" on google as 61.18.170.150:8909, but this might also be a past echo. Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . The entry point cited in the block message is now returning 403 Forbidden errors for all proxy requests.  Accordingly, I have unblocked this IP.  --Chris (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

173.245.64.124


User says that while block message says they may be running an open proxy, they are not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . This is an exit point for Hotspot Shield.  I will advise the user to disable this software.  --Chris (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

61.18.170.68


Reason: Requested unblock at User talk:61.18.170.68. Blocked at 06:33, 14 October 2011 by ProcseeBot. Block reason is. Unblock request reason is "Dynamic IP of the second largest ISP in Hong Kong. Not a proxy server." I have not been able to confirm that either 61.10.194.136 or 61.18.170.68 is currently a proxy, but would appreciate a check from someone more knowledgeable about proxies than me. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still working on this. The scan is going slower than I initially thought, since the stealth SYN scan is causing my router to reboot every hour or so when it exhausts kernel memory trying to maintain the TCP sessions table. :( --Chris (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My scan turned up nothing, so I think . (Can't be 100% sure, but without positive proof...)  --Chris (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll check myself if you'd like a second opinion; at the very least for administration I would say to treat this as a shared IP. I highly suspect that it is a zombie computer as it's a well-documented, major source of spam. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 12:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Newipnow.com
They updated their IP list. I have blocked the IPs themself but will have no time (and technical ability) to check for rangeblocks for the next day or so (those IPs usually sit within hosting ranges). If you can, please check. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)




 * FYI, Special:BlockList will find rangeblocks when you enter an IP. For example, the first IP listed is part of a rangeblock.  --Chris (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Palmface) just forgot to check in rush - removed rangeblocked IPs. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have also blocked

and

which are also newipnow.com proxies. I see that Materialscientist has blocked all the IP addresses he/she has listed and also two more (184.107.58.144, 173.248.191.250), almost all for 6 months. I would think that longer blocks would be in order. (Other IPs from the same proxy server have been blocked for substantially longer. For example, 64.15.147.205 has been blocked by Zzuuzz for 5 years.) My inclination is to increase the block lengths, but I will wait to see if anyone else disagrees. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Longer blocks are normally issued for IP ranges, because the proxy IP might change over time - this is what you see in Zzuuzz's blocks; they also target a provider, not just one webportal like newipnow. In my experience, newipnow changes about a half of their proxy IPs (they offer a choice of a dozen) within about half a year, but a few IPs might stay longer. Materialscientist (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying things, as you evidently know more far about this than I do. However, the particular block I mentioned is not a range block, nor is any nearby IP blocked. (The same also applies to 199.58.161.130, blocked by Bsadowski1 for 2 years.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

218.208.97.226 et al.


Vandal targetting 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings [then my talk page after I protected the article] and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. 218.208.97.226 has been blocked as an open proxy in the past. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Suspicious edits
 * Judging from Robtex and behavior, they look like tunnel proxies, except for 113.105.88.196, which is "usual", direct proxy (blocked as such). I can't connect to 218.208.97.226 right now. Materialscientist (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Add to that: Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These two are regular proxies, reblocked as such. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:67.15.34.252


Reason: Admission by zh:User:67.15.34.252, by zh:User:Tomchiukc and by zh:User:Gzdavidwong at zh:User:67.15.34.252. 77.86.113.133 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a webhost, and with no recent edits since two years ago, i'm not willing to block it. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

142.68.169.0


Reason: Blocked indef in 2008. Is this still an open proxy? T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * – Dynamic address assigned to Bell Alliant; no consistent history of bad behavior on- or off-wiki. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 14:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

144.132.145.68


Reason: a hardblocked user is requesting a check to insure that this is actually an open proxy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * – It doesn't look like it is now, though it certainly looks like it was recently. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 15:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just unblocked the IP. Thanks. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

180.149.10.82


Reason: Requested unblock. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a valid one right now, though it is on a shared range of an ISP/webhost, would not hesitate to reblock on suspicious edits. So unblocked. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

64.251.21.76


Reason: repeated YouTube spam RA  talkcontribs 00:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Webhost, where a proxy used to exist, but has been gone for about a month now. /19 gone. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

177.36.244.41


Reason: reintroduced vandalism previously added by  and. Both of these are registered to universities in Montréal, whereas the reported IP is Brazilean. Could be a case of meat puppetry (or international travelling), but robtex reports the IP as blacklisted by CNET. Not sure about the ramifications of that information, though. Favonian (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The last sentence in from the miscreant does rather indicate that proxies are involved. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * . Those Brazilian proxies though, they're usually so dynamic they're gone tomorrow. My guess would be a month tops. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No edits in almost a month, so I'm guessing the proxy was, indeed, "gone tomorrow". Closing; can re-open and administrate if we get a second edit from this IP at some point in the future. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 14:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

176.227.192.0/20
Need advice (go ahead and block if ..) on. Behavior-wise, there is a strong evidence for a proxy of some kind. The host is redstation.co.uk. Materialscientist (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet looked too close at those contribs. I've seen a few very similar just recently. These types of IP are normally used by desktop/browser apps, like 'hide my ip' or whatever. There may be a legit user or two in the hosting range, at least at some point, and these VPN ranges are normally fairly small, like /27s, but scattered about a bit. hth. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the contribs, and the fact that it was a webhost, and found that the edits were not being useful (especially with the tp spamming) so i've nuked the /19 as I normally do for webhosts. People that need an account for a legit reason on a webhost, can talk to a CU. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

83.170.106.45


Reasons: Tor node ; blocked for abusive edits,. See talk page history for list of warnings and blanking of those warnings. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * - Also mentioned above, funnily enough. I've reblocked it for two years. Not currently Tor, but part of a free anonymity service. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

118.112.185.66


Confirmed proxy. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Suspicious edits
 * Blocked by zzuuzz. Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

83.170.102.172


Reason: yesteday, another IP editor made a similar edit to Darkness Shines' talk page; it turned out that the IP was an open proxy. I suspect this one could be too. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've hardblocked 83.170.64.0/18 for 3 years because per robtex the range belongs to http://your-freedom.de, and rangecontribs do indicate abuse. Feel free to modify/question the block. Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, it's appreciated. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

94.46.15.160


Appears to be an open proxy. User has previously added identical edits on User talk:Erikvcl as two other blocked proxies (193.224.193.153, 41.35.45.197). One of the blocking admins recognized the edits as those of a banned user. Mathsci (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * . Blocked as such. Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

62.212.72.240


This IP was used recently in an edit war, it says Here that it is a confirmed proxy server. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmed open proxy. Anonymizing program with free service available.  Hostname is ems27.your-freedom.de.  Sailsbystars (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * nuked 62.212.64.0/19 the other day per an SPI. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

24.26.21.241


Reason: Requested unblock. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm about to unblock. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

184.105.146.8


Reason: Requested unblock (UTRS ticket #886).--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 03:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . I would politely decline. Materialscientist (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

173.234.211.214


Requested on mailinglist. This is a global block
 * – This is, however, a hosted server; take that as you will. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 13:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See this context as well. --Chris (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the intent was to block the hosting facility, I think NETBLK-UBIQUITY-LOS-ANGELES-173-234-208-0 (173.234.208.0 - 173.234.211.255) should have been blocked and not necessarily NETBLK-NOBIS-TECHNOLOGY-GROUP-08 (173.234.0.0 - 173.234.255.255). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 15:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to assume that this specific IP address requesting unblock was the one that triggered the block initially. Looking at the block itself in the absence of any unblock request, it's not immediately apparent which addresses were running open proxies.  --Chris (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the discussion to which you linked, Vituzzu mentioned a large hosting facility, and it seemed likely to me that Ubiquity was that facility (it's apparently the only facility major enough to be listed on Nobis Technology's Web site). If it was another facility I'd prefer that that facility's netblock be blocked more specifically too. I'm just thinking in terms of collateral damage and blocking as a preventative measure. But your point is well taken so it's kind of a moot point, I suppose. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed; the block is anonymous-only, so anyone affected by the block should simply create an account. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 15:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

182.50.64.71


Reason: Requested unblock.
 * Unblock-en-l. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * – I can't connect through port 80 as ProcseeBot indicated and confirm it, but it looks like an ISP proxy, one that's in half a dozen blacklists for link spamming, in some cases advertising child pornography. And ProcseeBot did flag it relatively recently. I wouldn't recommend unblock, maybe account creation and a change to softblock. (Not IPBE as I don't know that there's a history of positive contributions.) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 15:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should note that nmap doesn't return anything at all. There is either no computer with this IP or it's dropping all incoming traffic.  Further, stopforumspam has seen no activity in 17 days, and when there was activity there were spans of no activity only lasting a day or two.  This proxy may have been taken down.  I'd suggest we look at it again in a week or two.  --Chris (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Switched to softblock, recheck down the road. I have to agree that this is too likely to not be one, but WP:AGF. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * – Upon re-review, if this was an open proxy at some point (there seems to be some evidence of that, though I don't think it's as much as I previously argued), it's not anymore. Block has expired. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 16:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

202.189.69.150


This is a Tor exit, but the block also blocks authenticated users who are obviously not anonymous!

Reason: Requested unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgcaus (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not sure we have the technical ability to circumvent the torblock extension, do we? --Chris (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * – I don't think we do, but I'll look through the source to make sure; it's a good question. In any case, I don't think it's likely at all that there's much collateral; this is a web host. If a particular contributor requests IPBE, we can consider it. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the TorBlock code and CommonSettings.php, it looks like users can be exempted by giving them the torunblocked user right (which we can't do; it's not assigned to any groups) or by placing them on the MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist (which we also can't do; that's not its purpose). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 14:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * – OverlordQ's tool is not correct (it may not have been authoritative for some time and I'm the last to know); this node is active and does exit to Wikipedia. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 17:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

83.170.106.45
Hi, would one of the more experienced admins please look over this proxy block? It was clearly being used for sockpuppetry, and appears to be the server "ems23.your-freedom.de" via the port 53379. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My block
 * My block
 * I'm running a thorough check right now, but my initial impression is that the open proxy was taken down and has been replaced by a closed proxy. However, it looks like this closed proxy may be shared by many, many subscribers... and I suspect that the primary reasons someone might want to subscribe to this service and edit Wikipedia through it are probably not benevolent.  --Chris (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Chris (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...okay. Should the block be reduced to a week then (due to the abuse of puppets)? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably reasonable. If abuse continues, treat it like any other shared IP.  --Chris (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * – Proprietary protocol from what I can tell. 263 users currently using this IP . Blocked for three years by Materialscientist. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 16:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1.64.162.247


Reason: Suspicious edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs)
 * Hey Billinghurst, I don't see any edits...do we have the right IP? -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * – No edits from this IP address. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 01:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)